No train ... but a taxi. Which refused to take passenger ...

[whole diary]

[grahame]

The other evening, when the train was cancelled because of the fire at Trowbridge, a taxi was laid on which came down from Chippenham to Melksham and carried on to Trowbridge and Westbury.

The Taxi driver refused to pick up two passengers who were waiting at the station because they didn't have tickets and left them there as he drove on to Trowbridge with at least 2 empty seats in his vehicle. There is no ticket machine at Melksham station, nor anywhere else to buy tickets nearby, so there was no way they could buy tickets - they had expected to be able to buy them, as normal, during their journey.

This has been reported to me by an excellent witness who saw it happen.

I can see no justification for leaving the passengers (not unruly, not drunk, not threatening) behind, and feel  that the action taken by the taxi driver on behalf of the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) was well out of order. Would anyone who knows all the ins and outs of what should (and should not) be done in circumstances like this care to comment?

P.S. I was down at the station this evening ... same train (and really a train tonight) - more seats taken than empty, and 6 passengers got off at Melksham and at least one joined.

[Phil]

Presumably if they had money to buy tickets, they'd have money to pay for a taxi fare. So they were viable customers. Except, a taxi fare is typically 10 times as much as a train fare, so perhaps the potential passengers were offering to pay him the going rate for a train ticket - and if he (the taxi driver) only gets refunded receipted tickets, which couldn't be issued, he'd then actually be transporting them at a loss.

I bet if they'd offered to pay him the usual going rate for a taxi ride to Trowbo he'd have gladly driven them then.

[devon_metro]

Presume the bill will be forwarded to the taxi firm who have just lost some business from fGW!

[John R]

Presumably if they had money to buy tickets, they'd have money to pay for a taxi fare. So they were viable customers. Except, a taxi fare is typically 10 times as much as a train fare, so perhaps the potential passengers were offering to pay him the going rate for a train ticket - and if he (the taxi driver) only gets refunded receipted tickets, which couldn't be issued, he'd then actually be transporting them at a loss.

I bet if they'd offered to pay him the usual going rate for a taxi ride to Trowbo he'd have gladly driven them then.

I suspect that given the circumstances, there was a shortage of any available transport, and the taxi company provided and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) did not communicate well with regard to what the contract was. I'm sure FGW understand their obligations, which unless they declare force majeure, are to get passengers to their destinations.

  

[grahame]

I suspect that given the circumstances, there was a shortage of any available transport, and the taxi company provided and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) did not communicate well with regard to what the contract was. I'm sure FGW understand their obligations, which unless they declare force majeure, are to get passengers to their destinations.

I suspect you may be right, John - but the case is not exactly a unique one. I have been informed in the past that replacement road transport does not have to be provided for people who don't already have tickets in their possession (as they are not technically customers / passengers with a contract until they do), and also to wait for the following service which (at ten to 8 on a Friday night) wasn't due until twenty past 9 the next morning. And both of those examples came from the people I spoke to when I phoned the number given on a sign at Melksham station, and on occasions where there wasn't chaos of the sort we saw this week.    That's why I have to ask "was the action taken in leaving passengers behind because they were unticketed in line with instruction" ... and I fear there's a sporting chance that the honest answer is "yes, and it's within FGW's rights to do it".

[Graz]

Certainly still worth letting FGW^▸ (First Great Western) know, as the passengers were in a no-win situation and I think the actions of the taxi driver were frankly disgraceful.

[Phil]

Did you ever get a response from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) about this, Graham? Are they following it up with the taxi company? I'm still fuming about it!

[grahame]

Did you ever get a response from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) about this, Graham? Are they following it up with the taxi company? I'm still fuming about it!

A response from a senior manager with whom I was discussing wider matters yesterday - verbal and I'm paraphrasing - "what happened [as reported] was absolutely wrong - and we will make sure that there's a reminder / instruction given to bus and taxi drivers.  Please ensure that we hear about it with specifics if it happens again.".   When pressed, "there may be a legal argument that if they don't have a ticket already there's no contract ... but there is NO WAY that First would look to deny carriage"; the manager went on to identify things like dreadful press that could result ...

In summary, I'm going to suggest an over-zealous or under-instructed contractor driving the rail replacement service, or elements of the situation that you / I are not aware of as they were absent from reports.

But - yes - unless the driver felt that he was threatened, I'm still very much of the opinion that what happened was dreadful ... "if that had been my daughter left behind ...."